Les Jones: Is the Electoral College Unchangeable?

May 03, 2006

Politics > Is the Electoral College Unchangeable?

Michael Williams thinks so, arguing that the necessary constitutional change would require less populous states to act against their own self-interest.

The amendment process requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to make the proposal, and this proposal must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Since there are currently 50 states in the Union, all it takes is 13 states to bury a proposed amendment.
Under the electoral college system, states with low population have a number of electoral votes disproportionate to their size, and their populations clearly have a significant interest in maintaining this power. Wyoming's 3 electoral votes give the state 0.558% of the total 538, even though its population of 498,703 is only 0.173% of the total population of the country (288,368,698). Wyoming's electoral power (and representation in Congress, incidentally) is more than 3 times higher than it's population should warrent under a purely democratic system. As a result of this math, every state that possesses a number of electoral votes below the median would be harmed by the elimination of the electoral college, and so no such amendment could ever pass.

I count eight states with only three electoral votes, the bare minimum guaranteed regardless of population. It's possible to pass a constitutional amendment without those states, but it would be very difficult.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't believe that small states benifit from the current system. While they may enjoy some mathematical advantage, as a practical matter, their votes have become almost irrelivant.

In a close election (and now-a-days, all of them are close) what counts more - a few thousand votes in Florida, or a few thousand votes in Nebraska? I mean, c'mon...

There are two reasons for this. First, the winner-take-all system within a state means that many states are noncompetitive and can simply be ignored. The swing voters who live there are powerless. Second, the large states are must-wins, and they garner all the attention. Texas, Florida, and California get promised everything by the candidates. North Dakota is promised nothing.

If every vote was counted the same way - just one big election, not 50 seperate state elections - than a swing vote in Nebraska would be as valuable as a swing vote in Florida. That's how it should be done, and the smaller states would benifit most.

Posted by: Mike at May 03, 2006

Put yourself in the shoes of a politician on the campaign trail during the popular election you describe. Would you really bother going to Montana or any other state with a low population density? Heck, no.

Another argument in favor of the electoral college is that swing vote you talked about. What are the odds that the national vote will be tied 40 million to 40 million, and just one vote will make a difference? Unlikely. On the other hand the odds that just one vote will be a difference in a state election are much, much higher.

One more argument. Imagine the vote really was tied 40 million to 40 million (or anywhere near close, for that matter) and we had the system you described. There'd be calls for recounts at every single polling place in America. Every one. It'd be Florida 2000 all over, but this time for every single county in the nation.

Under the electoral college system, you only have to worry about close elections and recounts if the electoral college is close and the popular vote is close enough in a state where there are enough electoral college votes to swing the election, as in Florida 2000.

Posted by: Les Jones at May 03, 2006

The entire motivation for the electoral system was a desire to keep small groups of people from being abused by the masses. Those half a million in Wyoming would be effectively bent over a barrel by the 18 MILLION or so in New York.

Because nobody would give a rat's hind quarters about visiting Wyoming until they were assured they had the vote of the 36 times larger population in New York.

Which is why in general we started out as a republic instead of a democracy. The people still rule, but with a moderated hand. Small or hated groups still have a voice compared to the masses.

Posted by: Paul Simer at May 03, 2006